Suarez v. Grand County
2012 UT 72
| Utah | 2012Background
- Citizens challenged Grand County Council Ordinance 454 approving amendments to a PUD for Cloudrock Development; district court granted summary judgment for the Council and Cloudrock.
- The district court rejected Citizens’ theories of administrative remand under CLUDMA and illegality; Citizens appealed.
- The court must decide whether the Council acted in a legislative or administrative capacity when adopting Ordinance 454 and whether the Ordinance should be set aside for illegality.
- The 2002 Resolution approved the Cloudrock PUD rezoning and related approvals for a nearly 2,000-acre parcel owned by SITLA; Moab Mesa originally held the development rights.
- Cloudrock succeeded to Moab Mesa’s interest; the Cloudrock Application sought amendments, leading to the Amended Agreement, Amended Master Plan, and the Cloudrock Code; these were incorporated into Ordinance 454.
- Ordinance 454 replaced the Original Agreement with the Amended Agreement, amended PUD boundaries, and directed further record perfection for uses on review and related exhibits; the Amended Master Plan and Cloudrock Code divided the development into zones and created administrative deviations (warrants/variances) under the LUC and CLUDMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 454 was enacted in a legislative capacity | Citizens argue the Council acted administratively, applying existing law. | The Council acted legislatively, creating a new law of general applicability after weighing policy considerations. | Yes; Ordinance 454 is a legislative act. |
| Whether Ordinance 454 should be set aside for illegality | Citizens contend the amendment lapses, conflicts with the General Plan/PFA, or was not properly noticed. | Council complied with CLUDMA/LUC requirements and weighed policy; not illegal. | No; Ordinance 454 not set aside for illegality. |
| Whether notice for Ordinance 454 and related actions was adequate | Notice failed to inform the public of the nature of the subject (e.g., zoning changes, Cloudrock Code). | Notice was reasonably related to the subject; adequate under flexible standard. | Notice sufficient; not a basis to set aside. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morra v. Grand County, 230 P.3d 1022 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (standing; replacement of original agreement with amended agreement; legislative act analysis)
- Carter v. Lehi City, 269 P.3d 141 (Utah Supreme Court 2012) (guidance on distinguishing legislative vs. executive actions; deference to form)
- Save Beaver County v. Beaver County, 203 P.3d 937 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (recognizes intentional legislative labeling as indicator of legislative action)
- Friends of Maple Mountain, Inc. v. Mapleton City, 228 P.3d 1238 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (precedent on site-specific zoning and legislative characterization)
- Springville Citizens for a Better Cmty. v. City of Springville, 979 P.2d 332 (Utah Supreme Court 1999) (PUD approvals and administrative vs. legislative treatment)
- Town of Marble v. Darien, 181 P.3d 1148 (Colo. Supreme Court 2008) (reasonable relation notice standard for public-notice adequacy)